Re: [Leica] Rangefinder or SLR?

[Ruralmopics@aol.com]

In a message dated 12/29/99 4:44:25 PM, tedgrant@islandnet.com writes:

<< In reality, why wouldn't they continue to promote and make the visoflex,
after all there are a great number of SM&M cameras out there where the
owner could afford the visoflex, but not an R8 or other R with appropriate
and very expensive lenses.. >>

I'm quite sure I should just let this whole thing drop but I'm intrigued. 

Personally it doesn't bother me at all if somebody wants to use a Visoflex. I 
just don't buy the more affordable arguement -- at least not when you keep 
results in mind. Maybe I'm missing something. Let me see if I understand the 
argument . . . 

The Viso will save the LTM or M user money because he doesn't have to buy an 
SLR and lenses to go with it. Is that right? Makes perfect sense when you 
compare it to an R8. But is that really a fair comparison? Are their only two 
choices -- poor but funky or top of the line? A fella could buy an R3 or R4 
for not much more than a Visoflex III (yes, a Viso II would be cheaper). 
Isn't that an option?

It must be the lenses for the R camera that make the proposition so 
expensive.  But again, aren't you comparing brand new state of the art Leica 
R glass to 1960s-era Viso glass? But assuming for a moment that older 
Viso-appropriate Leitz glass is acceptable, is it possible to buy these 
lenses for less than some other brand's modern SLR glass? Would a 20-year-old 
 200mm Telyt outperform a modern Pentax, Minolta or, dare I say, Canon 
telephoto or (shudder) zoom?

If my thinking is fuzzy on this I'm sure someone will let me know but in my 
mind,  if cost is a factor it seems more practical AND economical to use a 
relatively modern Japanese camera and telephoto when you need an SLR than 
monkey around with a Visoflex -- which I imagine to be sort of clunky in 
operation. Maybe I'm nuts, I don't know. 

But hey, like I say. It doesn't bother me. Do what you want.

Bob